- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Squirrelmeister
| Favorite team: | LSU  |
| Location: | |
| Biography: | |
| Interests: | |
| Occupation: | |
| Number of Posts: | 3919 |
| Registered on: | 11/7/2021 |
| Online Status: | Not Online |
Recent Posts
Message
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/7/26 at 10:29 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Of course I can, and I have done so for years with you. You keep lobbing false accusations against God and the Bible, and when someone like me steps in and responds with an explanation as to why you are wrong, you respond with things like "Ridiculous baseless assertions", and "More nonsense".
You cannot, and you never have. The issues I raise about the Bible are self evident and verifiable by anyone. Your explanations are baseless assertions and nonsense because they aren’t backed up by evidence or facts and they are all either made up on your head or pulled from biblical passages which themselves carry no factual or historical worth because they are simply words written on goat skins by uneducated people who thought the earth was a flat disk with a sky ocean held back by a solid sapphire-like structure. You can’t make assertions of truth claims and then attempt to back them up using the Bible that you pulled the truth claims from. That’s why your assertions are baseless. You might think your assertions have a basis - and that basis is your particular interpretation of whatever Bible you are using, but there is no basis since your Bible is a fantasy to begin with not containing any special facts or any facts at all about cosmology or history. Your Bible is complete fiction, even though it uses historical people groups and figures, in the same sense Batman is really set in Gotham city on a historical earth.
quote:
First, you're missing the point that if all things belong to God, then He can decide who He loans it to at any moment. If a father let's his child play with his phone and then tells another child they can take it from the first child and play with it, it isn't "stealing", even if the first child cries to dad and says "he stole it from me!"
Nice try to redefine “stealing”. If someone has been in possession of an object and believes it to be their property that they obtained through legitimate and fair means, and if you take it from them by force, that is stealing. What you’re saying Foo is bullshite.
quote:
Second, simply saying God told you to do something isn't sufficient,
Why the frick not? :lol: what’s your burden of proof? How do you know Joshua and Moses really talked to God and they didn’t make it up as an excuse to commit genocide? Because the Bible tells you so. :lol:
quote:
God proves that He is God and should be listened to and obeyed through works of the miraculous
Show us some of those proofs of miracles. :rotflmao:
quote:
He also doesn't communicate to us now like He did in ancient Israel. We have the Bible completed for us.
Well that’s convenient… and pathetic.
quote:
But you don't care about any of that, because you'll twist anything to your own ends as long as you can mock Christianity.
You’re the twister, Foo. You don’t care about reality as long as you can trick yourself into believing your false reality. It’s sad, really.
0
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/7/26 at 5:37 pm to icecreamsnowball
quote:
James the Apostle was not Jesus’s brother
Sure he was. Just like all baptized followers of their Kyrio Kristos. All believers are brothers of the Lord and sons of God.
Romans 8:14-17,29
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/7/26 at 3:50 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It does, though.
No :lol:
quote:
An objective moral standard is one whose truth and binding authority do not originate in and are not contingent upon the mind of the subject bound by it, but exist independently of that subject’s beliefs, preferences, or will.
You can’t show that “the Bible” is sufficiently consistent with itself to have objectivity on the morality of actions such as killing, thievery, marriage, sex, rape, or slavery. Additionally, you can’t show that there is any truth whatsoever to “the Bible” and your belief system a d dogmas. There’s no objectivity at all, much less an objective moral standard.
quote:
Morality is based on God’s nature, not His will, and not our wills. God wills morality because His will is consistent with His nature, but the basis of morality is in God’s nature/character, not in His decree. Objectivity speaks to the nature, origin, and authority or binding nature of morality. What you keep wanting to focus on is application of an objective moral code, and won’t accept any explanation that interferes with your mission to dismiss it.
:blah:
Ridiculous baseless assertions
quote:
For example, stealing: stealing is ultimately wrong because it denies God’s ownership and authority over all things. When you steal from your neighbor, you are denying God’s authority and benevolence in giving something to the “owner”. When, for example, God commands the land of Canaan to be taken, that isn’t stealing because the true owner (God) is giving permission for Israel to take over stewardship. And that’s what property ownership really is; stewardship, since God owns all things and He can give “ownership” (from our perspective, but it’s actually stewardship) to whomever He pleases. It’s also why God cannot be guilty of stealing anything because everything belongs to Him already.
More nonsense.
“Stealing isn’t wrong if God endorsed it. Heck, it’s not even stealing.”
Truly and utterly retarded, Foo. I would expect nothing less.
What can’t be justified by just saying “God told me to do it”.
You just support that woman who drowned all her kids because God told her to do it.
You’re sick. Get help.
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/6/26 at 9:15 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
You just don’t get it.
No you are mistaken. I actually just do not agree with you. :lol:
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/6/26 at 9:13 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:quote:No. I’m better understanding that what we each mean when we say “objective morality” are two different definitions, and there is a fundamental disconnect in either of our abilities to understand the other. You are defining morality by the actions themselves; isolating them from the circumstances and the environment in which they occur, and therefore assuming that the moral value of any particular action is determined by the circumstances. You are looking for an exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts.
think you are finally understanding though that there is no objective moral standard contained within the Bible
Objective morality is defining actions as moral or immoral and if there is an objective standard, then the standard should show objectivity. For example, a code of laws could say that stealing is immoral. As an objective standard it would mean the action is stealing is immoral and that is the truth based on such a standard. If that same standard contained text that stealing is immoral - thou shalt not steal - but then also has other text commanding stealing and praising stealing then there is a conflict on the subject of stealing. It therefore cannot be stated that there is an objective standard contained within the text on the subject of stealing and whether is it moral or immoral.
So when the Bible says though shalt not steal - as commanded by the deity - and then the deity also commands the people to loot and steal and advocates and promotes thievery (Israelites loot Egypt upon their exodus, Abraham and Isaac both steal from Abimalech, Abraham steals from the Pharoah, David steals from Israelites while he is an agent of the philistines (and everything David did was good in the eyes of Yahweh except what he did to Uriah the Hittite), the Israelites steal the land from the Canaanites, the Israelites steal from their neighboring city-states (Moab), etc. then there is no objective standard. If it sometimes says don’t steal, and then it sometimes commands and promotes thievery, then there is no objective standard on theft. That’s just one example.
Take slavery. The southern plantation owners used “the Bible” as the objective moral standard that said slavery was morally permitted. The abolitionists used that same “the Bible” as the objective moral standard to conclude the opposite. Therefore there is no objective standard on slavery in the Bible.
quote:
I am defining objective morality as the nature of the actions; which takes into account the circumstances and environment (inseparable parts of an equation) in which the action occurs, and uses the nature of a Holy and perfect God as baseline for judgment.
Then stop saying the Bible contains an objective standard! Jesus!
Simply say you believe your morality is guided by your deity and your interpretation of “the Bible”. That would be correct and truthful.
You’ve admitted the Bible contains no such standard. I’m glad you see that now. Rather than wanting to be like FooLaneCraig I’d say just state what you believe but you don’t have to say the Bible contains any moral objective standard, because that would be a falsehood. Help to educate Foo and others on your side. Claim all you want that your morality is guided by God’s perfect good moral nature - fine! But stop saying the Bible contains an objective moral standard, because it doesn’t.
Let me help you with a 4 minute video.
The Bible is not an objective moral standard
quote:
So, when you say, there is no exhaustive, explicit list of do’s and don’ts in the Bible, you’re right.
Thank you!!! Spread the word. Help your brothers in Christ become honest with themselves on this subject.
quote:
But when I say that the nature of God is the objective standard by which all moral actions are ultimately judged, and that this can be found in the Bible, then I am right.
PS, come on man. You’re killing me. You and Foo can’t even agree on the nature of God. How many Christian denominations? How many sects of them and Jews and Muslims who claim to worship the same deity? What maybe 50,000 sects or so? None of them can agree fully on the nature of God. How is that objective? It’s not.
quote:
The problem with your position is twofold. One, nobody is challenging the claim that your definition of objective morality does not exist in the Bible or at all. Two, you don’t practice what you preach when it comes to morality. you don’t treat morality as though it were subjective in your daily life. None of us do. Except psychopaths..
Not true. Is killing morally permissive? Am I killing a person for fun or because I don’t like them? That would be immoral. Am I killing them because they are attacking my family in my home at night? Different ball game. Do they have a gun? Or any weapon? Are they big and scary? Do they have accomplices? How far away are they? Can we get away? Quick I only have 5 seconds to decide! I have to judge and it’s a judgement call. That’s moral relativism. That’s how everyone in society operates except psychopaths.
quote:
I’m still waiting for you to lay out your plan to cure the world by killing God.
I don’t know what that means :lol: but it did remind me of this (29 second) clip of South Park.
Let’s be atheists
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/6/26 at 1:16 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
You insist you’re unbiased, that your position is pure evidence-based neutrality with zero faith commitments.
Correct
quote:
Miracles or divine revelation are impossible by definition. Everything must have a natural/physical/material explanation. This is the lens through which you filter information.
I think you’re misrepresenting me, but not intentionally. Yes, miracles are impossible by definition, so belief in the occurrence of a miracle must have to have some extraordinary evidence… but there isn’t any. I’m not willing to just believe in anything written down on a 2000 year old goat skin without the preponderance of evidence supporting it.
quote:
We all have presuppositions. The intellectually honest move is acknowledging them- instead of claiming ignorance.
Maybe so, except my presuppositions can be shown to be wrong based on being supported by evidence. Your presuppositions, despite evidence to the contrary, aren’t accepted by you as evidence. For instance, we know Herod the Great died in 4BC and that Quirinius didn’t take over and conduct his census until 6AD. So I could look at Matthew and Luke and I’d have to say one or both cannot be true about when Jesus was born. You can’t accept that so you’d have to gin something up to trick yourself into believing contradictory accounts are both true. Same with Judas’ death - was the field of blood called that because it was bought with blood money or because Judas’ blood was spilled there. You would say “why not both?!” Were Jesus’ last words “why have you forsaken me?” or “I commit my spirit” or “it is finished”? It can’t be all of them. At most one can be right but maybe none are correct. Your presuppositions, supported by your biases, state that all three are historically accurate. Even if I had a bias, my bias could be overcome based on supported evidence. Your biases and presuppositions will remain no matter what evidence or argument could be made.
quote:
Were are the spider man meme. I think it’s hilarious. It’s even funnier that you can’t see it.
I don’t think so, Tim.
quote:
I don’t need to prove Christianity beyond all doubt to make this point.
Well no one has been able to do so, despite such a think being good for “your side”. Paul’s bad apologies (Romans) don’t make any sense at all when you consider there are a lot of Jews and Muslims who are devout and want to wholeheartedly believe and serve the God of Israel and they won’t believe in Christian claims. It’s not a lack of desire on their parts. If you believe a loving and all powerful god would willingly blind those (Jews and Muslims) who want to serve that god with all their mind and heart, then your belief is flawed. If anyone could prove their religion is true beyond all doubt, there would be only one religion in the world.
quote:
Dismissing Christian evidence isn’t “just following the data”
Well for a start, some evidence would have to be presented.
quote:
I can afford to be wrong about Christianity. You can’t.
Hello Pascal, can you afford to be wrong about Islam? Muslims say you’re going to burn in hell for eternity for worshipping a man instead of the one true God.
quote:
How do you neutrally evaluate the historical minimal facts around the resurrection
Bart, you can’t take a bunch of ancient documents you acknowledge are historically unreliable, plus some Christian forgeries inserted into Antiquities of the Jews plus a couple of Romans discussing the existence of Christians in the second century who are repeating already-established Christian tradition and arrive at “minimum facts” and say there was a rabbi named Jesus that pissed off the Romans and was crucified. Maybe there was, but we don’t have any evidence for it. Hell, there almost certainly was a “Yeshu” or “Iesous” who pissed off the Romans and was executed by them. It doesn’t mean that the Christian tradition goes back to such a person, when we can clearly show from evidence the earliest Christians were worshipping Jesus before there was any knowledge whatsoever of any traditions of a historical earthly Jesus.
There are no minimum facts of a historical earthly Jesus on which Christianity is based. If archaeologists one day find out by finding evidence that the man Jesus really existed on earth and he really was the start of the movement, I’d be elated that we knew more about early Christianity. Whatever we find out I’ve have to accept whether I wanted to or not, but I really don’t even have a dog in that hunt. I don’t care if Jesus was historical or not, though I am convinced by the evidence we have that he was not historical. If new evidence is introduced that shows I was wrong, then that’s fine. I am unbiased.
quote:
or the fine-tuning arguments
Just an argument, and a poor one. Why would God make an infinite universe that we could never travel through? Fine tuned for life? Please. How many droughts and crop failures did the Israelites experience in the Bible even? Only about 20% of the planet is habitable, and 0% of the remaining universe is habitable. I think the evidence points in the other direction - that the universe is clearly not fine tuned for life.
re: They are finally getting around to the J6
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 9:38 pm to Mbeloso
quote:
Doesn’t matter if it right or left. The FBI is a deep state domestic control group with
The feds are still doing the patriot front thing. I’m kind of surprised Trump didn’t put an end to that ridiculous shite,
re: Attended My First Jewish Funeral
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 2:31 pm to dickkellog
quote:
why bother with a funeral as jew's have no concept of a life after death. this life is all there is for jew's
Jews believe Yahweh is going to come to earth to resurrect the dead and restore their bodies with divine imperishable flesh, judge the living and the dead, and restore the earth to a perfect place to live and Yahweh will reign as king.
Where do you think Christians got those ideas?
re: Attended My First Jewish Funeral
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 11:42 am to Aubie Spr96
quote:
I’m curious if this was a cultural affinity for the place or perhaps something hardcoded in the DNA?
In ancient Canaanite religion, and the religions evolved from Canaanite mythology such as the Israelite religions (say from around 1000BC to around 300BC) the high God and creator of all had 70 sons with his wife Asherah/Athirat. He broke up with people groups on earth into seventy nations and gave each nation to one of his sons. The high God - El Elyon - gave the Israelite people to his son Yahweh (Deuteronomy 32:8-9) as an inheritance. Elyon didn’t just give the people to Yahweh but the land too. Only on that land the Israelites occupied did Yahweh have power an authority.
Examples:
2 Kings 3
Yahweh takes the Israelites, Judahites, and Edomites (Edomites were Yahwists too) to conquer Moab, but the god of Moab, Chemosh, defeats Yahweh and his army coalition. (Also see the Mesha Stele in the Louvre museum which tells of the battle from Mesha’s perspective.)
2 Kings 5
The Syrian army leader, Namaan, was healed in Israel and subsequently takes two mule loads of Israelite soil back home with him. Only on Israelite soils could Yahweh be worshipped.
1 Samuel 26
David is exiled by Samuel, and David exclaims he is being forced to worship other gods. By leaving Israel and being on land that was the authority of the other gods, David had no choice but to worship the gods who had authority over the land he was in.
Exodus
The Israelites couldn’t worship Yahweh in Egypt. They had to leave and go worship Yahweh in the wilderness. The Israelites had to leave the land that was the authority of the Egyptian gods to be able to worship Yahweh.
Psalm 82
This was wishful thinking by an exiled Jew in Babylon. He longed for the day he would be able to worship Yahweh in Babylon. He longed for Yahweh to usurp his divine brothers’ authority over the nations given to them by El Elyon and take all the nations and their lands for himself. Then the Jewish author in Babylon would be able to worship Yahweh anywhere.
Judges 11:24
Jephthah, the judge who slaughters his daughter as a sacrifice to Yahweh for Yahweh securing victory for him in battle, tells the Ammonites he’ll possess the land given to Yahweh while they can possess the land given to Chemosh their god.
2 Kings 17
The king of Assyria sends settlers to Samaria and they don’t know how to worship Yahweh, who was given that land as his inheritance. Since they aren’t worshipping the deity of that land correctly, Yahweh sends lions to attack them. So the king goes out to find an Israelite priest who can show the settlers how to worship the crazed deity who inhabited that particular land so as to ward off lion attacks.
So the land of Israel they believe was a special gift from their deity, and there’s a special connection of Israelite soil to their deity. While modern Jews believe Yahweh has authority of the whole world and they reject the idea of Yahweh having a father, mother, and brothers (from the religion theirs evolved from) the idea that Israelite soil is connected to their god has persisted.
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 9:31 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Adam sinned and we inherited his guilt.
Hmm, interesting.
Let’s look at what “Ezekiel” (another fictional character in addition to Adam) wrote:
quote:
19“Yet you say, ‘Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?’ When the son has done what is just and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself.
So despite the divinely inspired word of God directly quoting the words from God’s mouth that he will not punish the sons for the sins of the father, you’re like “frick that” and you believe what you want to believe because you’ve been brainwashed to believe the dogma of your religious cult.
quote:
God sent another to be our representative by faith, and trusting in Him (Jesus) results in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.
None of that shite is real or ever happened in reality. You on here have claimed that God abhors child sacrifice and yet you don’t see the biggest child sacrifice in your religion and you “love” “God” for making the decision to have his son killed. Whackos.
quote:
In your analogy, the firefighter didn’t start the fire, but your dad, and you add gasoline to it.
Nope, I was clear it was the firefighter who started the fire. In my analogy though, the firefighter is all powerful and all knowing and sees the future and can read the minds of the people in the building.
Foo, let me ask you something based on the mythical tale in which you believe.
Do you think it is fair - it is righteous and good - for Yahweh to punish Adam for his transgression knowing that Adam did not have knowledge of what good and evil were at the time of the sin, also considering Yahweh could read Adam’s mind the whole time?
I don’t need to ask you if it is fair to punish the sons for the sins of the father because you’ve already told us what you believe.
ETA: You like to reject the earliest Christian and pre-Christian scriptures as apocryphal and non-inspired, while cozying up to the scriptures of the Jews - the same Jews who (in your fairy tale) Jesus told them they did not know the scriptures. Did you know the modern Jews today do not believe in original sin or that people are born sinful as a result of Adam?
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 8:55 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
it's why i do not engage with him. When you do, you are providing a platform for him to hunt.
I like hunting, but no one hunts better than the LORD your loving and good God when he is murdering his own chosen people.
quote:
7So I am to them like a lion; like a leopard I will lurk beside the way. 8I will fall upon them like a bear robbed of her cubs; I will tear open their breast, and there I will devour them like a lion, as a wild beast would rip them open.
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 8:44 am to Prodigal Son
quote:
I bet the biggest difference is you see that as a big meanie torturing people for eternity because they didn’t want to be his friend. And I see (what the Bible repeatedly warns) sick people dying because they don’t want the Cure. Again, you’re projecting human faults onto a holy God.
Yes he’s a meanie who created the problem in the first place. The firefighter who sets a building on fire simply to be able to put it and save the people inside - those people should be angry, not thankful the firefighter put out the fire. I’m not projecting human faults onto anything much less a holy god, because I don’t believe in that deity.
quote:
Maybe you’re oversimplifying it? You’re trying to separate the action completely from the circumstances. It doesn’t work like that. Moral actions don’t happen in a vacuum- they are purely relational. Morality is not a set of rules that you can put into a pdf. It’s not a legal document that can be manipulated and exploited to serve self interest. That’s what you want right? A nice tidy box to put that in, so you can pull it out when you need it, and put it away when it is inconvenient. Morality is like math; in the sense that it can be discovered and repeated, but if you change one factor you get a totally different equation. Is math not objective now? Of course it is. We recognize the difference in the equation. We expect a different result. I would imagine the full scope of all possible moral actions and outcomes as infinite as math, too. But des that make it subjective?
Seems like you are crawfishing. I think you are finally understanding though that there is no objective moral standard contained within the Bible, whether you will admit that or not. If killing babies is sometimes morally permitted (Midianite genocide, Amelekite genocide, Jericho, magic abortion potions, dashing Babylonian babies heads against the rocks, etc.) but sometimes prohibited, then the action of killing babies is not objectively moral or immoral. William Lane Craig would agree with me actually, sort of. :lol: He claims killing babies is objectively immoral unless God tells you to do it - a divine command. Sick. :yack: But this clearly demonstrates the only objectivity is not in the morality of killing babies, but in doing whatever God says at the time he tells you to do something. So that would shrink objective morality into one thing: an action is moral if and only if God tells you so do it at the time it is being done. So you can’t say killing babies is objectively moral or immoral.
quote:
We can disagree about where that comes from, but I think it’s foolish and dangerous to follow subjective morality to its end.
In reality this is the only type of morality. This is why, if you went to college, you probably took a course on “Ethics” so you would learn how to think and how to analyze the reality of subjective morality.
re: White female cop abused by teens in SC?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/5/26 at 8:29 am to Nosevens
quote:
I wonder what in their upbringing made it possible for them to behave like that? Hmm ?
Those with low intelligence are prone to violence and poor decision making.
re: This isn’t a great look for the pentagon. They appear to claim Mormons aren’t Christians
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 10:33 pm to Prodigal Son
quote:
Do you honestly believe that you’re just letting the text speak for itself and you’re not bringing any presuppositional bias (must be) to your interpretations?
I’m one of the few on this site that does let the texts speak for themselves. I don’t superimpose a dogma to them. I interpret them in their original context based on their original authors, and I don’t presuppose univocality. I think you guys have your biases and presuppositions and simply can’t compute that someone else might not be biased and goes where the evidence points rather than attempting to fabricate evidence to support presuppositions. I think is a form of psychological projection.
quote:
So then, why try so hard to destroy His character?
“He” destroys his own character to be honest.
quote:
I’ve learned a lot because of you. My faith is stronger than ever.
I’ve enjoyed our discussions and I’ve learned a few things from you. You’ve made me think more deeply and I feel like I’m a more competent atheist because of you. :cheers:
quote:
But it doesn’t explain the need to (attempt to) destroy the main character of a fictional book.
If the dominant culture around you was Muslim, and if they wouldn’t chop off your head, wouldn’t you want to argue with them. Wouldn’t you want to free them of silly superstitions? I argue on here because I like to argue and it might do others good.
quote:
Obviously we’re going to disagree on El Elyon and Yahweh being two distinct Gods, but, you’re still missing the question- what does it mean to be chosen, in the context of the OT and NT?
I think it’s easy and not complicated. Chosen, or the chosen people, was Elyon choosing Israel for Yahweh. Israel became Yahweh’s inheritance. Israel is called Yahweh’s inheritance all throughout the Bible. The Hebrew word for inheritance is a word that means possessions passed from a father to a son. You can inherit something from yourself.
quote:
You know, it’s easy to just throw.a blanket theology statement out there. The theology (of which I am not well informed) is incompatible with traditional Christian beliefs (RC/Orto/Pro). And I do believe the general consensus of traditional Christianity requires, at minimum a very high (I would say the highest) Christology. Based on my limited knowledge, both fail to meet the bar. I have seen some Mormons make some very compelling arguments for God. I have not had much experience with JWs. They’re weird. I’ll take the Amish over both.
I don’t think you get to arbitrarily define what a Christian is. If you did, you’d exclude most Christians before the fifth century.
re: Texas getting it's own Sharia Law
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 9:43 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Azkiger
You gave him an easy opportunity for the W. Just cite a skeptic who doubted the historicity of Quirinius. You didn’t even say it had to be a legitimate scholar.
:lol:
re: Joey Chestnut dominates.....again!
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 6:37 pm to oldskule
quote:
67 dogs and buns in 10 minutes!
If he didn’t puke them up, he will no doubt have to take at least 15 shits from this one “meal”.
re: Texas getting it's own Sharia Law
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 5:59 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Also, how far down the totem pole do we go. Islam, Judaism, and Christianity... Okay. What about Hinduism? Buddhism? Mormonism?
There are more practicing Jehovah’s Witnesses than there are those or acting the Jewish religion. Might as well add them too.
quote:
While its not necessarily a bad idea that our population know what these religions believe, our many schools already have children falling behind as is. They're not even scoring, on average, where they need to be scoring in science, math, and reading. Not sure if adding in religious studies (or any other field that's not STEM) is such a good idea
True, but that’s an indictment of the public school systems. The government makes them suck. All my kids score at the top percentiles and they still have time to learn Catholic doctrines every day and go to church and still have time to frick off. I think they only get maybe 2-3 hours of real STEM school work/practice a day and that’s still enough to smoke the public schools.
re: A little history you may not know: To Anacreon in Heaven
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 5:35 pm to dickkellog
quote:
here's something you probably didn't know we started that war 1812 thinking that with the brits tangled up with napoleon it was the perfect time to snatch us a big ol piece of canada! after they finished their war with france they came in hot and pissed in 1814 technically we had that coming.
They were commandeering our merchant ships, kidnapping men and forcing them to join their military, and they were already creating a proxy war by arming the injuns.
re: Can we agree to stop with the religious persecution of other Christians?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 12:17 pm to Narax
quote:
A non JW would obviously if trying to tear down Christianity put Mormons first as they are substantially more popular (also more sane, aka no blood transfusion bans).
They are no more or less sane than you and the rest.
re: Can we agree to stop with the religious persecution of other Christians?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 9:07 am to theballguy
quote:
For those who insist on doing this, can we at least agree to stop with the religious persecution of other Christians on this board?
So we are still good to bash non-Christian religions such as Catholics, Orthodox, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Oneness Pentecostals, and Unitarians.
re: Can we agree to stop with the religious persecution of other Christians?
Posted by Squirrelmeister on 7/4/26 at 8:41 am to CrystalPreserves
quote:
Imagine no religion. All the people living life in peace. Nothing to kill or die for. You may say I’m a dreamer. But i’m not the only one.
That nice young man from England was on his way home to see his little boy, and was signing some autographs, and for no particular reason at all, somebody shot him.
Popular
36
